I have been sticking my nose to the grind and went searching for evidence that these people (especially Al Gore). I found nothing, and since I am not going to state anything as truth without evidence I am going to state right now that all of this post will be unsubstantiated.
I have disproved Anthropogenic Global Warming (at least as much as I can) in my last post. The question that comes up is that if this evidence is easily available then why does anyone believe it? Why does anyone claim it to be true? There are three main schools of thought that I know of.
The first is the one I favor the most. The media are using AGW to get more money. The idea behind this one is that TV stations and newspapers get money from advertising. Advertisers pay money based on viewership/readership, so more viewers/readers is equal to more money. Now although people say they want truthful news, in reality people will simply ignore boring news casts. Be honest. If you had to choose between a show about the latest Britney Spears screw up and a traffic report you will change the channel to Spears. Well what trumps even celebrity shenanigans? The end of the world. If I owned a TV station and I could get away with it then I would tell everyone that an asteroid was about to impact the earth. So regardless of any evidence available, it would be more profitable to be alarmist. Heck, why even bother with fact checking. Anyone who knows enough about science knows that every little detail of every theory on earth if constantly being argued over. If you were ever caught you could simply state that the "information is not yet in".
The second one is simple. People are stupid. Don't attack me yet, this one is a common belief. Basically people either don't know about the information I have posted or they simply don't care at all. Under this idea it is possible to say that no one, except maybe the experts in the field, knows about AGW's flaws. I think this one is right to an extent. I doubt that everyone knows nothing. This would require unprecedented amounts of ignorance. It would probably be more then any other time in history. Even when people believed in a flat earth the Greeks had figured out that was incorrect.
The third theory is more fun then I think it true. This is mainly because it is the only example of a conservative conspiracy theory I know off hand. The theory is that the government or entities within the government, are using AGW to control your life. I would normally laugh at this be unfortunately if you accept the premise that they already know AGW is incorrect and take a look at the climate security act of 2007 then it becomes apparent that there is some water in that cup. How much is to be determined. The reasoning behind why they want control varies a little mostly with what ideology the government wants to push. The most conservative reasoning ( by conservative I mean the reasoning that would be used most often by conservatives) is that the government is trying to push socialism. Others believe it is a fascism they are pushing (I like to point out that socialism is a type a fascism and hence they are restating the previous theory). Regardless of the reasoning I still classify this as a conspiracy theory as it would require a massive amount of coordination in the media (the media is supposedly involved in this) and congress. Occam's razor prevents me from believing this.
These are the why's behind AGW. One I didn't mention is the one about politicians doing this for money. Usually the logic is that they hold stock and while that is not bad as far as evidence goes, it isn't "conclusive". Can we know why? Probably not. Only way I can figure is if you prove in a very public place that they are full of it and then ask/demand to know why. I don't see this happening so it is easily ignored.
The bottom line is that AGW is far away from being accepted yet policy is based on its supposed validity. A bright side is that the Climate Security Act of 2007 has failed in the Senate so we can rest easy for a while but unless a massive conservative victory comes in November the act will pass on the next session.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Monday, June 9, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Global Warming Insanity pt. II
Ahh here again. I tried to do some research so as to prove another point but couldn't find what I needed so I am just going to stick with my original proof.
If you look at the data from the Petit et. al. analysis of the ice cores and make a graph in Excel you will notice that there appears to be a correlation. For the next part I am going to ask a simple question. If you were expecting CO2 to cause temperature increases on a global scale then what would the graph look like? Think on this a little and then look at the next parahgraph.
If you said CO2 goes up first then you would be correct. simple causeality would seem to state that if something causes another thing then that thing must occur first. This follows in the event of a car accident. It is unlikely that a bumper would get dented before the accident. This however is not seen in the Vostok cores as analysed by Petit et. al.. For instance just in the last glacial transition there was a lag of almost 1500 years. the one before that had another lag of several thousand years. This is consistent with the idea that temperature causes CO2 and not the other way around. Since backward causeality, effect before the cause, makes no sense this should be the smoking gun that disproves AGW.
This isn't quite the end though as the argument against this is that CO2 is a "feedback". Basically temperature causes an initial increase in CO2 and then CO2 in turn amplifies the temperature. This seems to fix the problem but in reality only causes a new one. Feedbacks come in two different flavors, positive and negative. An example of a positive feedback would be a bunch of rabbits in a pen and for every x number of months that go by the rabbit population increases by 50%. If you started with lets say 20 rabbits and waited lets say three months then when those months are over you will have 30 rabbits. If you repeat this prossess then you will get 45 rabbits then 67 then about 100 and so on. If this were graphed then it would look like an exponential graph. (sorry about speaking in mathese, I will try to limit it) A negative feedback would be like the rabbits exceeding their food supply and starving themselves to death. That would look logarithmic in nature.
Back to CO2, if the feedback is positive, which it would most likely be, then temperature would increase CO2 which would raise temperature which would raise CO2 etc... until a catastrophic climate catastrophy took place or a negative feedback kicked in to stop the runaway prossess. Conversely if the feedback was negative, either to start with or as a natural cutoff, then to increase our temperature by x amount you would need y amount the first time then 2y the second time then 4y the next time and so on. Essentially the amount of CO2 we as a species would have to produce to have the kind of effect described would require such a large amount of CO2 that I would wager that the air would toxify before we exceeded the 2 degrees centigrade required to bring about total destruction.
And one more thing, the two degrees that are supposed to kill all life on earth, made up. It would have to be as no self-respecting scientist would declare that two is the magic number that would cause mass extinctions. How could I know? Simple, just 126k years ago the temperature was 3.06 degrees higher than it is today. Just 126k years, not 126 mya not 126 bya (universe wasn't around then anyway) but 126k years ago. Our ancesters were even around then. So much of the evidence is made up that to look at it makes me cry.
Why do I care? Because, I love science. Especially cosmology, gotta love the universe. When I see these global warming fanatics I become irritated by their use of science. Rather then subjecting their ideas and hypotheseis to the facts they instead subject the facts to their hypotheseis. This is completely contrary to the scientific prossess and is a disgrace.
This was a long post, I will finish this someother time with a why segment. Right now I am tired of doing research and am taking a break.
Sources: Vostok core data ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=273 (the bit about 2 degrees killing everyone.)
If you look at the data from the Petit et. al. analysis of the ice cores and make a graph in Excel you will notice that there appears to be a correlation. For the next part I am going to ask a simple question. If you were expecting CO2 to cause temperature increases on a global scale then what would the graph look like? Think on this a little and then look at the next parahgraph.
If you said CO2 goes up first then you would be correct. simple causeality would seem to state that if something causes another thing then that thing must occur first. This follows in the event of a car accident. It is unlikely that a bumper would get dented before the accident. This however is not seen in the Vostok cores as analysed by Petit et. al.. For instance just in the last glacial transition there was a lag of almost 1500 years. the one before that had another lag of several thousand years. This is consistent with the idea that temperature causes CO2 and not the other way around. Since backward causeality, effect before the cause, makes no sense this should be the smoking gun that disproves AGW.
This isn't quite the end though as the argument against this is that CO2 is a "feedback". Basically temperature causes an initial increase in CO2 and then CO2 in turn amplifies the temperature. This seems to fix the problem but in reality only causes a new one. Feedbacks come in two different flavors, positive and negative. An example of a positive feedback would be a bunch of rabbits in a pen and for every x number of months that go by the rabbit population increases by 50%. If you started with lets say 20 rabbits and waited lets say three months then when those months are over you will have 30 rabbits. If you repeat this prossess then you will get 45 rabbits then 67 then about 100 and so on. If this were graphed then it would look like an exponential graph. (sorry about speaking in mathese, I will try to limit it) A negative feedback would be like the rabbits exceeding their food supply and starving themselves to death. That would look logarithmic in nature.
Back to CO2, if the feedback is positive, which it would most likely be, then temperature would increase CO2 which would raise temperature which would raise CO2 etc... until a catastrophic climate catastrophy took place or a negative feedback kicked in to stop the runaway prossess. Conversely if the feedback was negative, either to start with or as a natural cutoff, then to increase our temperature by x amount you would need y amount the first time then 2y the second time then 4y the next time and so on. Essentially the amount of CO2 we as a species would have to produce to have the kind of effect described would require such a large amount of CO2 that I would wager that the air would toxify before we exceeded the 2 degrees centigrade required to bring about total destruction.
And one more thing, the two degrees that are supposed to kill all life on earth, made up. It would have to be as no self-respecting scientist would declare that two is the magic number that would cause mass extinctions. How could I know? Simple, just 126k years ago the temperature was 3.06 degrees higher than it is today. Just 126k years, not 126 mya not 126 bya (universe wasn't around then anyway) but 126k years ago. Our ancesters were even around then. So much of the evidence is made up that to look at it makes me cry.
Why do I care? Because, I love science. Especially cosmology, gotta love the universe. When I see these global warming fanatics I become irritated by their use of science. Rather then subjecting their ideas and hypotheseis to the facts they instead subject the facts to their hypotheseis. This is completely contrary to the scientific prossess and is a disgrace.
This was a long post, I will finish this someother time with a why segment. Right now I am tired of doing research and am taking a break.
Sources: Vostok core data ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=273 (the bit about 2 degrees killing everyone.)
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Global Warming Insanity Pt. I
Another day passes by and another bill is drafted. This new bill lovingly called the Leiberman-Warner bill or the climate security act of 2007 is once again trying to impose the carbon cap and trade idea on the american people. This bill is likely to take a year of so before it is finally passed; you know, when libs (sorry "progressives") control both houses and the presidents office. Of course I am just insane. None of this will harm us and we need to save the environment or else we will all die.
Everyone knows the prediction of twenty meters of ocean increase that will flood everyone else out of their homes and the mass droughts that will cause world wide deserts. Toxic air was another I have heard and mass extinctions of all species including our own. Also, how could I forget how our planet will become like Venus, a planet that I would vote for being the planet that most closely resembles hell. Of course most people who even buy into Anthropogenic Global Warming still don't buy all of this but I have met a few.
How can I doubt something that is a "closed" discussion in science? Well, first of all there is no such thing as closed in science. If closed discussions were ever honored then we would still beleive the solar system revolved around us. I thought conservatives were supposed to fear science? Maybe they all mean that science is pretty sure it is right, i.e. AGW is a theory. Sure, except that a petition is being circled around right now that has no less than nine-thousand signitures from scientists includeing something like fifty PH.Ds. I havent seen this myself so I cannot comment on this petition, but I didn't expect that to be proof, just a sort of "Ain't it interesting?" kind of comment.
There are lots of proof I am told, so where is this proof?
source: http://www.ourworldfoundation.org.uk/plight-nof.htm
That is a picture of the vostok cores. This mostly is used to show that there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperature. Anyone who did not fall asleep in statistics could tell you that correlation does not prove causation but that is what this is used for. One major problem with this is that when I looked at this grap I came to the conclution that something is wrong with this graph. Look at the CO2 at the end of the graph that rises massively. That is supposed to represent our effect on the environment, but here is the problem. In the raw data of the Vostok cores I found on the internet does not show any such spike. The spike in the graph above reaches up to about 380 ppmv the actual data from Petit et. al. only goes to 280 ppmv.(source ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt) Where does this spike come from? I have no clue. Petit's own mesurements in 2001 only go to 2342 YBP. The rest is either made up or grabbed from someone else. (The website I grabbed this from only sources Petit et. al. for the graph so I cannot tell who they could have grabbed this from. They also source the much allauded IPCC report so maybe they just forgot to mention this.)
Assuming these are actual mesurements then what we have is a composite graph. Major problem with composite graphs is that the mesurements can come from two very different sources. Sure, the data could have come from the same or similar places or we could have a situation where one mesurement came from the antarctic and the other a busy metropolis. Why not just show you a good graph in the first place? Because this graph, along with another graph, is used in Al Gore's movie. This is the kind of thing that makes it so hard for anyone to speak of AGW. If I say anything then someone will pull up a bogus graph.
I am running long so I will finish my proof of AGW's flaws another time. Then tell you what it all means.
Everyone knows the prediction of twenty meters of ocean increase that will flood everyone else out of their homes and the mass droughts that will cause world wide deserts. Toxic air was another I have heard and mass extinctions of all species including our own. Also, how could I forget how our planet will become like Venus, a planet that I would vote for being the planet that most closely resembles hell. Of course most people who even buy into Anthropogenic Global Warming still don't buy all of this but I have met a few.
How can I doubt something that is a "closed" discussion in science? Well, first of all there is no such thing as closed in science. If closed discussions were ever honored then we would still beleive the solar system revolved around us. I thought conservatives were supposed to fear science? Maybe they all mean that science is pretty sure it is right, i.e. AGW is a theory. Sure, except that a petition is being circled around right now that has no less than nine-thousand signitures from scientists includeing something like fifty PH.Ds. I havent seen this myself so I cannot comment on this petition, but I didn't expect that to be proof, just a sort of "Ain't it interesting?" kind of comment.
There are lots of proof I am told, so where is this proof?
source: http://www.ourworldfoundation.org.uk/plight-nof.htm
That is a picture of the vostok cores. This mostly is used to show that there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperature. Anyone who did not fall asleep in statistics could tell you that correlation does not prove causation but that is what this is used for. One major problem with this is that when I looked at this grap I came to the conclution that something is wrong with this graph. Look at the CO2 at the end of the graph that rises massively. That is supposed to represent our effect on the environment, but here is the problem. In the raw data of the Vostok cores I found on the internet does not show any such spike. The spike in the graph above reaches up to about 380 ppmv the actual data from Petit et. al. only goes to 280 ppmv.(source ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt) Where does this spike come from? I have no clue. Petit's own mesurements in 2001 only go to 2342 YBP. The rest is either made up or grabbed from someone else. (The website I grabbed this from only sources Petit et. al. for the graph so I cannot tell who they could have grabbed this from. They also source the much allauded IPCC report so maybe they just forgot to mention this.)
Assuming these are actual mesurements then what we have is a composite graph. Major problem with composite graphs is that the mesurements can come from two very different sources. Sure, the data could have come from the same or similar places or we could have a situation where one mesurement came from the antarctic and the other a busy metropolis. Why not just show you a good graph in the first place? Because this graph, along with another graph, is used in Al Gore's movie. This is the kind of thing that makes it so hard for anyone to speak of AGW. If I say anything then someone will pull up a bogus graph.
I am running long so I will finish my proof of AGW's flaws another time. Then tell you what it all means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)